Airbus A380 safety test injures 33

  • Thread starter Thread starter Astronuc
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Safety Test
Click For Summary
Thirty-three individuals were injured during a safety test of the Airbus A380 in Hamburg, Germany, primarily from friction burns while evacuating down the aircraft's escape ramps. The test involved 853 volunteers and 20 crew members, who successfully evacuated the plane in 80 seconds, surpassing the required time. Despite the injuries, discussions emerged about the necessity of such tests and the overall safety of the A380, with some arguing that a broken leg is preferable to potential fire hazards in a real emergency. Concerns were raised regarding the aircraft's capacity to safely transport up to 1,000 passengers, with comparisons made to the safety records of other aircraft like the 747. The A380's design and testing process have sparked significant debate about aviation safety standards and emergency preparedness.
  • #31
i just hope that this goliath of a jetliner doesn't have an achilles heel, for example, if a swallow were to get sucked inside the intake it would take the whole plane down


but in general i don't see how it would be any less safe than any other jetliner, since all objects fall at the same rate of time

the only downfall of a larger jetliner would probably be the whacko kamakaze pilot who takes one over
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #32
imperium2600 said:
i just hope that this goliath of a jetliner doesn't have an achilles heel, for example, if a swallow were to get sucked inside the intake it would take the whole plane down
Believe it or not, engine manufacturers test their engines with a machine that throws chickens at them at 300mph and they have to be able to chew them up and swallow them without failing. But even if something much bigger took out an engine, it could easily fly on 3 - or even two (if they were on opposite sides).
 
Last edited:
  • #33
russ_watters said:
Believe it or not, engine manufacturers test their engines with a machine that throws chickens at them at 300mph and they have to be able to chew them up and swallow and swallow them without failing. But even if something much bigger took out an engine, it could easily fly on 3 - or even two (if they were on opposite sides).
We've got one. The FAA requirement for the number of hail balls, ice slabs and bird ingestions per attempt is a function of fan diameter. Most of our engines are sized that they have to withstand a single, 4 lbm bird with no appreciable loss in thrust performance. Something along the size of what the A380 uses should have to withstand 3 simultaneous impacts, but I would have to check the FARs to be certain. The speed of the shot is also a variable.

That part of the certification testing is the second most tense/scary test in my opinion.
 
  • #34
FredGarvin said:
That part of the certification testing is the second most tense/scary test in my opinion.


And I almost got to witness a chicken test on a Rolls Royce recently! Rats!

Off topic slightly, I heard an urban rumour somewhere that Westland once had to perform a similar (to the standard gas turbine) chicken test on some rotor blades, but nobody told the technician that the bird had to be defrosted prior to firing it through the spinning blades...
 
  • #35
brewnog said:
And I almost got to witness a chicken test on a Rolls Royce recently! Rats!

Off topic slightly, I heard an urban rumour somewhere that Westland once had to perform a similar (to the standard gas turbine) chicken test on some rotor blades, but nobody told the technician that the bird had to be defrosted prior to firing it through the spinning blades...
That one's older than the hills. I've heard a bunch of different versions.
 
  • #36
FredGarvin said:
That one's older than the hills. I've heard a bunch of different versions.


Hah, thought it must be too good to be true! Still, as far as urban legends go, it's a nice one to believe and ponder about!
 
  • #37
It's flying from the South West to Heathrow today :cool:
 
  • #38
imperium2600 said:
but in general i don't see how it would be any less safe than any other jetliner, since all objects fall at the same rate of time
So a plane falls at the same rate as a feather?
 
  • #39
dav2008 said:
So a plane falls at the same rate as a feather?
It's strange that people use parachutes, when it must be just as safe to stay in the plane... :-p